Government's job, in many areas, is to create an equality of opportunity, not necessarily an equality of outcome. And that is what needs to happen with this women-in-combat decision. The military needs to outline what skills and abilities make a quality combat soldier, and then make sure that people wanting to be combat soldiers meet the standards crafted.

We are under the impression this has been done already, as not every male is a candidate for jobs under discussion. But we should be wary of any standards that change in the coming months and years. Changes need to be because of equipment upgrades, new technology or other non-gender-based reasons.

The Associated Press reports that the defense leaders who signed orders opening a quarter-million military positions to women also said that no physical standards would be lowered to send more females to front lines. It's similar to concerns about firefighters, right? People don't care if a man or woman is sent into a building, but if one firefighter has the ability to lift a beam of a certain weight off a kid and another doesn't, we want to be sure we're sending in lifesavers with the best chances to save someone.

In general, men and women are physically different. We women get to have babies, men don't. Women are generally not as strong as men: Upper-body strength has been proved to be very different. This policy has to be about standards and individuals who can meet them both physically and mentally -- not about quotas.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at a press conference, "Not everyone is going to be able to be a combat soldier. But everyone is entitled to a chance."

Exactly: An equality of opportunity, but not an equality of outcome. We have to hold the military to this.

If the standards are so high that we end up with a shortage of the number of combat soldiers America decides it needs, the military will have to dip into the pool of people who got closest, regardless of gender, and who are just as brave and willing. But we shouldn't dip until required and we shouldn't lower standards. Setting the bar high keeps soldiers safer when face to face with people who want to kill them.

Most Americans are on board with having women in combat. The last two wars got us sadly familiar with losing both sons and daughters. A Jan. 24 Associated Press story says that "of the more than 6,600 U.S. service members who have been killed, 152 have been women."

Americans -- especially those who don't want a job physically protecting our nation, myself included -- understand that everyone has an equal right to die for his or her country. Those of you in my camp are simply grateful that military members voluntarily do something we don't want to do.

There are a handful of good arguments against having women in combat. If the job requirements are appropriately drawn, however, the remaining concerns are workable.

Women are fully aware they are at more risk for rape and other extreme violations by enemy combatants and learn the best avoidance techniques. Heck, the Center for Military Readiness, which is concerned about the new policy, writes that women are at risk even from their peers today. "Attacks and rapes in the ranks have nearly doubled since 2006, rising from 663 in 2006 to 1,313 in 2011," says a CMR post from last week, which cites an Army report.

Women can be reminded that combat zones often lack privacy and social etiquette. And male soldiers need to be readied for seeing female comrades in danger. And we need to come down hard on any misbehavior in our ranks. Men and women need to be able to choose to serve, and the new policy can't be allowed to drive away any current female soldiers. People should never be forced to perform a job they didn't sign up for.

Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker had a column disagreeing with women in combat on this page last week. She wrote, "The fallacy is that because men and women are equal under the law, they are equal in all endeavors and should have all access to the same opportunities. This is true except when the opportunity requires certain characteristics." That misrepresents the dilemma: Men and women should have equal access to the same tests that then determine certain characteristics.

Not all men are created like other men. Not all women are created like other women. Trusted standards are where our focus should be.